CER Overview Approaches to deepening integration for goods trade David Dewar First Secretary Economic, New Zealand High Commission, Canberra
NZ-Australia economic integration A success story but has taken three decades A living economic integration model: still work to be done to develop a true Single Economic Market, even for goods CER s evolution to SEM has reflected the changing economic and business environment but getting into behind-theborder issues (like standards) has still been challenging Has required a concerted effort: Government, officials, business, lawyers, academics, economic commentators
A gradual integration pathway For the first decade, focus on manufactured goods, agriculture Removal of tariffs, phase out of quantitative restrictions Elimination of anti-dumping JAS-ANZ, conformity assessment, quality assurance Customs and quarantine cooperation Government procurement For the next 20 years, it has been about deeper integration Single Economic Market mostly about services, business law harmonisation, regulatory reform, investment etc. But also further deepening on goods: Mutual recognition of goods standards (TTMRA) Single food safety regime (joint regulation) New ROO (2009) Extensive cooperation on biosecurity, Customs
Stakeholder reactions Original (1983) liberalisation of goods trade driven by Leaders and Ministers; strong opposition by vested interests e.g. manufacturers, farmers Business gradually became more enthusiastic, but it was a slow process As deeper integration has been undertaken, some hesitation at the political level Now business strongly supports closer economic integration A lot of trans-tasman businesses in operation, trans-tasman value chains, trans-tasman labour mobility and exchange of innovative ideas
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 NZD$ Billions Merchandise trade growth 20 Total Australia-NZ merchandise trade since CER began 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
Trade impact of CER As at Year Ending June 2015: Australia has been NZ s number 1 trading partner since 1989 (slipped to 2 nd in 2014, now back to 1 st ) In YE June 2015: Australia was our largest export market for goods and services taking 19% of New Zealand exports NZD$13b in total; goods NZD$8.5 billion) Australia was our second-largest source of imports providing around 17% of all imports of goods and services NZD$11.3b) Australia was our most important source of FDI Statistics NZ, Global New Zealand
The value of New Zealand New Zealand is Australia s fifth largest export market But #1 destination for Australian exporters 17,000 Australian firms export to NZ compared to 9,000 exporting to the US and 5,000 to China Flexible trade and labour markets supported both countries throughout the GFC And our higher exchange rate means particular opportunities for Australia s future (high value, labour-intensive) industries
Context: domestic and international Domestic Coincided with and gave impetus to domestic economic reform (e.g. subsidy removal, unilateral tariff reductions) Some trade diversion (intra- CER), but mostly overall trade expansion As CER has evolved to SEM, in parallel the Australian and New Zealand economies have become more open and focused on competitiveness International The integrated CER base (scale, scope, better competitiveness) equips Australian and New Zealand businesses to compete internationally and participate in global value chains Allowed A/NZ to negotiate as a bloc with ASEAN Has helped A/NZ to take robust, tested policy positions into international settings (ROO, SPS, TBT and regulatory reform)
The CER integration model The goal is not identical laws, but shared outcomes Not a one size fits all approach A gradual and organic process CER shows that economic integration can be achieved through a combination of: Unilateral reform in one country to align with another informal collaboration/cooperation mutual recognition harmonisation joint institutions
SEM Institutional Arrangements: goods NZ Ministers on Australian Councils Harmonisation - Joint regulators (food) Regular meetings between governments, officials Regular meetings between regulators/officials Treaties/Agr eements (ROO) Mutual Recognition (goods standards) Informal regular cooperation, collaboration Arrangements (Customs, quarantine) Formal and informal structures
Future directions? SEM Goal: to make it as easy to do business in Sydney as in Auckland and vice versa Goods, services, capital, people Seeking deeper integration behind the border 2012 Productivity Commission study A last few areas of goods trade that could be addressed in future to help create a true SEM: A very few remaining tariffs CER ROO, especially for re-export of low MFN tariff items Deeper cooperation on biosecurity
What has worked? Set ambitious goals and keep working towards them recognising that there will be faster and slower phases, and more or less difficult politics Goals and frameworks need to be endorsed at the highest political level helps keep momentum up even when vested interests are resistant Identify the needs first, and then design the mechanism (don t just rush to create new institutions or systems) Minimise need to surrender sovereignty or national identity No formal dispute settlement mechanism even contentious issues have been resolved eventually
Relationships matter Relationships are really important confidence breeds confidence Between Ministers; between officials; between business people, with commentary from legal/academic/economic commentators and journalists, to keep the process honest CER has required tough political leadership from Leaders, Ministers, officials, business, academics Has also required a pragmatic attitude Maintaining momentum through ups and downs has been facilitated by: Close working relationships at official level across many government functions Periodic setting of broad objectives, pursued through clear processes
Business matters ANZ Leadership Forum began meeting 2004 importantly, this is a joint forum Pressure or support for change needs to come from business in both countries to be effective The attitudes and role of business varied markedly through the CER process Initially the CER initiative was largely political, with some business support Now it is strongly supported by business champions, sometimes out ahead of the political level The level of business support or frustration has had important implications for the rate of progress